I literally don't have enough time in the day. My current playlist backlog is 34 hours, and that number has been increasing by about half an hour to an hour per week. An extra half hour per week I would likely be able to fit in, but I'm seeking weeks on dogma debate with greater than four hours of content. During a normal working week I have roughly 6 hours total of listening time to spare (mostly driving time). I can't displace 2/3 of my podcast time so easily.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.

(07-06-2014 07:05 AM)diddo97 Wrote: His argument is almost indistiguishable from pure brainwashing. He relies on not letting you think or ask any questions. Even in this debate, his entire argument was pretty much directed at the audience. He is a complete monster.

Have you ever had a thought of your own other than crying about how fucked up your life is, and parroting others views ? Your game is obvious, but you have managed to con some in here..... fuck off you cunt.

I thought Sye was a joke prior with his faulty question leading website and other debates.

I think less of him now. Once he gets away from his pleasured arguments, he backs down to the one canned response of God without context. I don't see the point in any debates of this nature existing without asking that, do you believe your position can be changed. That should be at the beginning to acknowledge how dishonestly unreasonable they behave.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson

Sye said he can't be wrong about the things he know, only what he thinks he knows.

Uh huh. So how do you know that what you know is what you actually know and not only what you think you know?

What if his belief in god is only what he thinks he knows (brain in a vat) and not what he actually knows? I noticed that According to Sye, the brain in the vat only applied to Matt. Why didn't Matt point out the ridiculous of this brain in a vat by asking Sye how he doesn't know he is a brain in a vat?

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson

1) He can cherry pick Matt's videos just as well as he cherry picks Bible verses.
2) He can utter "you could just be a brain in a vat" anytime he can't give a real answer to a point that is raised.
3) He can completely overlook that fact that there is nothing he is claiming that can't also be dismissed by "you could just be a brain in a vat".
4) He can disqualify everything he has to say by admitting right in the debate that his approach can be summed up as "god exists and therefore everything else follows from that - so whatever it is, make it fit that paradigm".
5) He simply attacks his opponent's position without ever even attempting to explain why his is "better".

In addition, if I hadn't already lost all respect for him, I certainly would have when he said "we all deserve an eternity in hell". Really? Deserve? I don't even think Hitler or similarly heinous people deserve an eternity of punishment, let alone hell. Yes, they deserve severe consequences, but not eternal hell fire.

Edit:
I should note that #4 is not a direct quote, but is my summary/interpretation of what he said.

I have always wondered if Presuppositionalist apologists just "presuppose" too much about things that their arguments are founded upon false axioms.
When people like Sye start using semantical arguments I know they are inherently stupid and worthless as a human being. Sort of how Muslims behave when you argue the exist of god with them and they truly believe circular logic is actual logic.

Muslim apologetics:

Axiom 1: Allah is god and exists thus the atheists hates Allah and is stupid.